Shadow Fox wrote:Also the fallacy fallacy. The fallacy that an argument is not valid because of a fallacy in it.

Not sure if trolling, or just really ignorant...

An argument employing a logical fallacy is invalid. The fallacy fallacy is the assumption that the conclusion is false just because the argument itself is invalid- which is something that does not follow.

"Penguins are black and white, all all creations must have a creator, therefore the sky is blue."

The argument is invalid, but the conclusion, the sky is blue, is accidentally true (but for completely different reasons).

Shadow Fox wrote:Also the fallacy fallacy. The fallacy that an argument is not valid because of a fallacy in it.

Not sure if trolling, or just really ignorant...

An argument employing a logical fallacy is invalid. The fallacy fallacy is the assumption that the conclusion is false just because the argument itself is invalid- which is something that does not follow.

"Penguins are black and white, all all creations must have a creator, therefore the sky is blue."

The argument is invalid, but the conclusion, the sky is blue, is accidentally true (but for completely different reasons).

Now then, so as I am not to be guilty of fallacy fallacy. You can still have a valid argument if your argument has a fallacy in it. Just because it is poorly argued does not mean that the entire premise of your position is invalid. It just means it is poorly argued. Fallacies Fallacy is very much a fallacy. You cannot claim..STRAWMAN..Ok done...I WIN! You lose...

No.. you need to explain why they are wrong and they need to be given a chance to restrengthen their argument and try again.

We are all born Atheists, everyone of us. We are born without the Shackles of theism arresting our minds. It is not until we are poisoned by the fears and delusions of others that we become trapped in the psychopathic dream world of theism.

I have provided you with clear logic, evidence and sources for my argument and you have done nothing but point and Ad hominem my intelligence.

A fallacy fallacy IS a fallacy. It is also referred to as argument from fallacy. If you still do not understand. I will be happy to meet you in the Atheist vs theist ring and we can make a your logic vs actual logic debate out of this. However, we must be the ones to debate this. Not someone else other than you.

We are all born Atheists, everyone of us. We are born without the Shackles of theism arresting our minds. It is not until we are poisoned by the fears and delusions of others that we become trapped in the psychopathic dream world of theism.

It would be cute if it wasn't so sad. No Mr. Shadow Fox, I was not employing an ad hominem fallacy. I am employing good old fashioned ridicule. There is a difference.

If you could understand the difference, you might also understand what a fallacy fallacy actually is.

Case in point:
You're an idiot. That is completely aside from the fact that you are also wrong, which I substantiated earlier.
This is not an ad hominem fallacy. You don't understand that, and you probably can't understand that.

Idiots can be accidentally right about things- so merely being an idiot doesn't guarantee that somebody is wrong. It makes it more probable, but is not proof in itself.

I didn't use that as proof, my first post completely debunks your claim, and continues to stand on its own. Your reply did not address my points, because you don't even understand what the conversation is about.

You are not capable of participating in a conversation with me at this point, because you literally do not understand the first thing about logic.

In this case, you are wrong, plain and simple.

People who aren't idiots can also be wrong, they are just wrong far less often, and for far more respectable reasons. So merely being intelligent doesn't guarantee somebody is right either.

My original post, however, explains why I am right, and I don't feel the need to repeat myself.

Shadow Fox wrote:A fallacy fallacy IS a fallacy.

Correct!
The problem is you don't understand what that means, what fallacies are, or how logic works.

I attempted to explain this in my earlier post, but you either chose not to understand it, are pretending not to understand it in order to play an idiot, or you're incapable of understanding it.

I also gave you a link which explains it in more detail, which you either didn't read or didn't understand (or are, again, pretending not to understand in order to troll).

In either case, I find it hilarious that you seem to think you can debate with me. That's a good one!

My first post is more than enough to stand on its own against any and all arguments you may make against it, now or in the future. You are wrong by definition, due to not understanding what words mean.

Shadow Fox wrote:However, we must be the ones to debate this. Not someone else other than you.

You're wrong because you're wrong, and I have demonstrated clearly why that is, and provided a link for your further study.

However, I will not debate you because you're an idiot. That's not an ad hominem fallacy either, that's just, "I don't like to debate idiots".

You can run your mouth all you want, and pretend like I'm scared of you, and list off a bunch of fallacies you don't understand - whatever makes you feel better - but it's just going to turn you into more of a clown than you already are.

If you genuinely don't understand, and you ask politely, I might try to explain it to you in a different way. But understand this: that would be a charity on my part. By no means would we be having an equal exchange- at the very most, you could hope for an information session with me as I school you on precisely why you are an idiot, so you can try not to be one in the future.

Now, you may proceed to shove your foot down your throat, if that's what you feel you need to do. Have fun with that.

I can not find my glasses today but I feel it really is important for me to fully understand what a fallacy is... Would anyone mind responding to me with their own view on fallacies so I don't have to give my self a headache reading through these pages...?

PrincessPeach wrote:I can not find my glasses today but I feel it really is important for me to fully understand what a fallacy is... Would anyone mind responding to me with their own view on fallacies so I don't have to give my self a headache reading through these pages...?

Examples:
-We're omnivores --> therefore it's OK to eat meat (appeal to nature fallacy: saying that just because something is natural it's therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal)
-God cannot be disproved --> therefore it exists (argument from ignorance: assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa)
-Most people believe in an afterlife --> therefore there is an afterlife (bandwagon: appealing to popularity as an attempted form of validation)

Examples:
-We're omnivores --> therefore it's OK to eat meat (appeal to nature fallacy: saying that just because something is natural it's therefore valid, justified, inevitable, good or ideal)
-God cannot be disproved --> therefore it exists (argument from ignorance: assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa)
-Most people believe in an afterlife --> therefore there is an afterlife (bandwagon: appealing to popularity as an attempted form of validation)

"You are an idiot" is a direct attack on my character to undermine my argument. You ARE guilty of Ad hominem.

The difference between calling someone out on a fault of theirs, criticizing them and attacking their Character A.K.A, Ad Hominem is thus.

1. Pointing out a fault is nothing more then informing them of what they have said that is wrong and then correcting it.

2. Criticizing them or the argument is to point out the faults in the disapproving way. This can sometimes be seen as hostility by some sensitive people.

3. Attacking them is calling THEM an idiot and focusing more power towards them instead of their comments, argument or what have you. You can say all you want about their argument and how their lack of evidence or strength of their argument itself does not make their side valid. But, once you step into insults.
You are Ad hominem and that is wrong. There is a difference between saying No, that is wrong and is a stupid argument and "You are" an idiot and here is why.

We are all born Atheists, everyone of us. We are born without the Shackles of theism arresting our minds. It is not until we are poisoned by the fears and delusions of others that we become trapped in the psychopathic dream world of theism.

PrincessPeach wrote:I can not find my glasses today but I feel it really is important for me to fully understand what a fallacy is... Would anyone mind responding to me with their own view on fallacies so I don't have to give my self a headache reading through these pages...?

I'll make it as short as I can

A logical argument has three "parts" we can consider:

1. Premises - these can be true, false (or sometimes unknown)

2. The argument itself - this is the logic that connects things. This can only be Valid or Invalid.

3. The conclusion - this may be true or false, like premises, but it can also be demonstrated or not, based on the argument.

If an argument relies on fallacies, it is invalid, which means it doesn't correctly connect the premises, and the conclusion.

If an argument is invalid, the conclusion might still be accidentally true.

An invalid argument only means the conclusion isn't proved by the argument, assuming the premises are true.

Like: Blood is red, and red is a color, therefore the sky is blue.

Well, the sky is blue, but that "logic" is not valid. Blood being red and red being a color have nothing to do with the conclusion.

The same way, a valid argument can lead to untrue conclusions if the premises are false.

Like: All dogs have wings, Thomas Jefferson is a dog, therefore Thomas Jefferson has wings.

The logic is valid, but the conclusion is false- this is made possible only by the premises being false.

Premises true + Logic valid = conclusions must be true

Premises false + logic valid = conclusions may be true or false

Premises false + logic invalid = conclusions may be true or false

Premises true + logic invalid = conclusions may be true or false

The only one that really proves something is the first one -- valid logic, and true premises.

The fallacy fallacy is this assumption (which is wrong):

Premises true + logic invalid = conclusions must be false.

Incorrect: The conclusion may be true or false. A fallacy doesn't prove the conclusion to be false, only the argument to be invalid (which says nothing about the conclusion other than that it's not proven true yet).